Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2012
The relationship between measurement method and corneal structure on apparent intraocular pressure in glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nessim Maged, Mollan Susan P, Wolffsohn James S, Laiquzzaman Mohammad, Sivakumar Subramaniam, Hartley Stephanie, Shah Sunil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To analyse the relationship between measured intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) in ocular hypertension (OHT), primary open-angle (POAG) and normal tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes using multiple tonometry devices.
METHODS: Right eyes of patients diagnosed with OHT (n=47), normal tension glaucoma (n=17) and POAG (n=50) were assessed. IOP was measured in random order with four devices: Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT); Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT); Reichert ocular response analyser (ORA); and Tono-Pen XL. CCT was then measured using a hand-held ultrasonic pachymeter. CH and CRF were derived from the air pressure to corneal reflectance relationship of the ORA data.
RESULTS: Compared to the GAT, the Tonopen and ORA Goldmann equivalent (IOPg) and corneal compensated (IOPcc) measured higher IOP readings (F=19.351, p<0.001), particularly in NTG (F=12.604, p<0.001). DCT was closest to Goldmann IOP and had the lowest variance. CCT was significantly different (F=8.305, p<0.001) between the 3 conditions as was CH (F=6.854, p=0.002) and CRF (F=19.653, p<0.001). IOPcc measures were not affected by CCT. The DCT was generally not affected by corneal biomechanical factors.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that as the true pressure of the eye cannot be determined non-invasively, measurements from any tonometer should be interpreted with care, particularly when alterations in the corneal tissue are suspected.
METHODS: Right eyes of patients diagnosed with OHT (n=47), normal tension glaucoma (n=17) and POAG (n=50) were assessed. IOP was measured in random order with four devices: Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT); Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT); Reichert ocular response analyser (ORA); and Tono-Pen XL. CCT was then measured using a hand-held ultrasonic pachymeter. CH and CRF were derived from the air pressure to corneal reflectance relationship of the ORA data.
RESULTS: Compared to the GAT, the Tonopen and ORA Goldmann equivalent (IOPg) and corneal compensated (IOPcc) measured higher IOP readings (F=19.351, p<0.001), particularly in NTG (F=12.604, p<0.001). DCT was closest to Goldmann IOP and had the lowest variance. CCT was significantly different (F=8.305, p<0.001) between the 3 conditions as was CH (F=6.854, p=0.002) and CRF (F=19.653, p<0.001). IOPcc measures were not affected by CCT. The DCT was generally not affected by corneal biomechanical factors.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that as the true pressure of the eye cannot be determined non-invasively, measurements from any tonometer should be interpreted with care, particularly when alterations in the corneal tissue are suspected.